Before telling about the hierarchy of fall protection, we need to learn about the hierarchy of control. The hierarchy of controls provides a systematic approach to determining the most effective measures for managing and mitigating hazards.
By prioritizing actions based on their general effectiveness, organizations can implement strategies that minimize risks and promote a safe working environment. From eliminating hazards at the source to equipping workers with personal protective equipment, each level of the hierarchy plays a crucial role in reducing occupational risks and ensuring worker well-being. In this guide, we’ll explore the five levels of the hierarchy of controls and their respective strategies for hazard control.
Following this hierarchy can effectively lower worker exposure to hazards, reducing the risk of illness or injury.
Elimination is the gold standard
As you can see both hierarchies see hazards elimination or substitution as the preferred solution. This means that employers should first try to remove all possible exposure to fall hazards. An example of elimination is ensuring no work has to be executed at height because machinery is moved to ground level. Elimination is always the preferred way to control a hazard and should be used whenever possible. The reason this is always the preferred method to control fall hazards is because the workers will not be faced with any fall risks and thus cannot get injured by a potential fall.
Legislation requires employees to try everything within their power to eliminate hazards in workplaces. As most employers or safety (HSE/HSQE) manager know, elimination or substitution is not always an option. There are situations in which people have to work at height. This is when we look at the second option in the hierarchy.
ANSI’s and OSHA’s hierarchies of fall protection compared
Both ANSI and OSHA have set various regulations for working at heights, and while many of the requirements show similarities there are also some notable differences. For example, ANSI and OSHA both have a so-called hierarchy of controls to help keep workers safe. These hierarchies show the preferred way of protecting workers from hazards. As with the regulations these hierarchies have some overlap as well as some contrasts. In this blog we’d like to explore the differences between the ANSI hierarchy of fall protection and OSHA’s hierarchy of controls.
ANSI’s hierarchy of fall protection strictly applies to those working at height, to minimize or fully eliminate the exposure to fall hazards. OSHA’s hierarchy of controls, on the other hand, applies to a wider range of work circumstances, such as the use of power tools. Both hierarchies rank solutions to counteract hazards in a successive order, from the most effective and preferred, to the least preferred as more dangers can arise from misuse.
| Hierarchy Level | General Control Type | ANSI Z359 Approach | OSHA Approach |
| 1. Elimination | Remove the hazard | Strongly emphasized as the first step in fall protection planning—e.g., designing work to avoid heights. | Not explicitly stated, but implied through the General Duty Clause and safe design principles. |
| 2. Substitution | Replace the hazard | Occasionally referenced (e.g., using safer access methods), though not always applicable to fall protection. | Rarely discussed; not a focus area in fall protection contexts. |
| 3. Engineering Controls | Isolate workers from the hazard | Highly encouraged—includes guardrails, scaffolding, covers, etc. Prioritized over PPE. | Strongly required where feasible—guardrails are OSHA’s preferred method of fall protection. |
| 4. Administrative Controls | Change how people work | Used to supplement physical controls—includes work procedures, signage, and training. Not effective alone. | Required (e.g., training), but not acceptable as the sole method of fall protection. |
| 5. PPE | Protect the worker with equipment | Seen as last resort, only used when other methods are infeasible. Includes harnesses, lanyards, and arrest systems. | Often required where other methods can’t be used. Must meet specific standards for PPE (e.g., 1926.502). |
Final Check according to ANSI
The least preferred method to combat fall hazards according to ANSI’s hierarchy are the administrative controls. This option includes warning signs, training and fall protection procedures. These measures in themselves do not save employees from a fall, but they help create awareness of the hazard.
In OSHA’s hierarchy of control administrative controls are step number three, after eliminating or engineering controls. These administrative controls described in this hierarchy are equal to the ones in ANSI’s hierarchy. However, OSHA’s hierarchy has one last step to control hazards; Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).
OSHA’s last line of defense
PPE includes for example protective clothing, helmets and safety goggles. Fall protection PPE includes full body harnesses, lanyards and temporary anchorages. This type of equipment helps protect employees from safety hazards in a workplace.
In OSHA’s hierarchy of controls PPE is a last line of defense. When it comes to fall protection PPE are often used in combination with an active fall protection system. There are situations where a temporary anchor point can be used, in combination with other PPE. An example is a sling anchor employed during construction on an the open sided floor level of a newly build skyscraper.
Safety levels in the fall protection hierarchy
The higher on the list, or pyramid, the fall protection solution is the higher the level of safety. The lower you get on the hierarchy the higher the influence of human behavior on the safety system. Only if you can show that the safer solutions are not possible can you implement, for example, a fall arrest system. Both hierarchies show a different approach to hazard control. This difference can be useful while considering suitable fall protection solutions for your project. Also remember that changes to a workplace can result in the rise of new fall hazards and that you may have to follow the steps in the hierarchy again.
“To help you in selecting the right solution for your organization we’ve put together our different safety solutions. These systems are ordered on level of risk reduction, desired freedom of movement, total users and user know-how.
Collective fall protection measures offer the highest level of safety.
ANSI fall protection measures
ANSI’s second level of protection consists of passive, also called collective, fall protection measures. Passive fall protection measures are static in nature and users do not have to interact with the system to ensure their safety. Guardrails are an example of collective fall protection measures.
Passive fall protection equipment is generally considered to provide a higher level of safety than fall arrest or fall restraint systems. As users do not have to put in work to use a system, resulting in less errors. Examples of passive fall protection systems are guardrails. Guardrails are placed at roof edges or in other areas to help prevent users from reaching areas where they could fall. Guardrails are an excellent option to keep everyone working at height safe without the use of fall protection Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).
ANSI’s second level of hazard controls is called engineering controls. These are measures that change the structure of a workplace to limit exposure to fall hazards. They are essentially the same kind of measures as ANSI’s passive fall protection; safety devices that block users from reaching dangerous areas. While passive fall protection (or engineered controls) are preferred for a worksite, there are situations where implementation of these solutions is not possible or could create greater risks. In this case we move to the next step of the hierarchy.
Brochure ‘SAFETY WITH A STAR’ – Fall protection systems ordered on level of risk reduction
To help you in selecting the right solution for your organization we’ve put together our different safety solutions. These systems are ordered on level of risk reduction, desired freedom of movement, total users and user know-how.